First, there's this technical definition that says there's a recovery. Why? Because some rich people are getting richer? If the economy doesn't serve the broadest group of citizens and there aren't jobs for people who want them, what kind of recovery is that? Perhaps this is why economists are so often confused.

Maybe, as Atrios says, somebody should do something?

A slowdown in American manufacturing and weak employment data sent stocks lower on Thursday as investors continued to absorb news of a weak economic recovery.

The separate reports from the Federal Reserve and the Labor Department were a fresh reminder of the slow pace of the recovery. Manufacturing, in particular, had shown tentative signs of a rebound in recent months.

The reports were enough to reverse the upward trend of the previous two days, when the market rose 1.1 percent.

“You had a one-two punch in one day,” said Doug Roberts, chief investment strategist for the Channel Capital Research Institute.

The result was a broad sell-off. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 144.33 points, or 1.39 percent, to 10,271.21. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index declined 18.53 points, or 1.69 percent, to 1,075.63, and the Nasdaq composite index fell 36.75 points, or 1.66 percent, to 2,178.95.

Financial, materials and industrial stocks all fell more than 2 percent.

It seems that, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which allowed uncontrolled corporate money into elections, that (surprise!) Republicans have a huge warchest from outside actors like the Chamber of Commerce:

On the left hand side of the chart is a list of ten Republican aligned institutions, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the Family Research Council. Next to it is a column listing the amount of money each group has pledged to spend by Election Day. A third column on the right details what those groups actually spent in 2008 on federal elections.

The number at the bottom delivers the key message. If their pledges are fulfilled, these ten groups will unleash more than $200 million in election-focused spending -- roughly $37 million more than every single independent group spent on the 2008 presidential campaign combined. This time around, almost every single penny will be going to Republican candidates or causes.

So, how did this happen?

First, Democrats didn't make an all out effort to torpedo either Roberts, or more reasonably, Alito. With both on the Supreme Court, decisions like Citizens United were inevitable.

Second, when given a historic opportunity to break the power of the rich and corporations by not bailing them out, Democrats bailed them out. They did not make shareholders get wiped out (as they deserved, they took the profits from housing bubble fraud, after all) and they did not let the bondholders take their losses. Be very clear, this was never about saving the economy, the trillions of dollars used to bail out these corporations could have been loaned directly to consumers and businesses which needed loans. In fact, at this point, it is entirely likely that bailouts made things worse, not better.

Continue reading »

Howdy, everyone! My name's Brad Reed and I'm comin' over here from Sadly, No! where I spent many a glorious year making fun of jerks. At any rate, I thought I'd introduce myself to y'all by bringing you the novel economic theories of one of my favoritest conservative bloggers ever, Bob "Confederate Yankee" Owens.

Last week, Bob discussed his novel theory on unemployment. Now, there are several reasons why unemployment is so high in America right now. One is that we had a decade of economic growth that was based on an $8 trillion housing bubble that saw the vast amounts of capital invested in houses that no one wants to buy. Another is that the housing bubble left in its wake more than 2 million construction workers who now face long-term structural unemployment since the housing boom is unlikely to return anytime soon. And then there's the problem that there's inadequate aggregate demand needed to boost overall consumption that would lead more businesses to hire and... OK, so you get the picture.

But Owens doesn't have any use for none of that fancy-pants economics talk. When he sees that there's 10% unemployment, his gut tells him what the real problem is:

THEY'S JES' LAZY!

Have a look:

By stopping unemployment benefits, the Senate will force those lazy Americans enjoying "funemployment" to get off their backsides and get back to work.

This is pretty awesome. I mean, you'd expect seasoned political operatives such as Mr. Yankee to do the smart thing and blame unemployment entirely on Obama's $700 billion stimulus check made out to ACORN. But instead of doing the politically savvy thing, he goes Full Metal St00pid and blames the unemployed.

Next he'll deliver a weaselly qualifier to show us that he's not, you know, a little bit empathetic to people who have lost their jobs...

I know that many long-term unemployed people have made a sincere effort to return to work...

...before reverting back to form:

...but I know for a fact that many haven't.

Given the weight of the charges that Mr. Yankee has leveled here -- i.e., that everyone who has lost their job over the past two years is nothing more than a shameless drifter living off government largess -- you'd think he'd provide some solid evidence to back it up. And indeed, he comes to the table with some of the strongest type of evidence known to man: namely, the anecdotal kind:

As everyone like anecdotes, I can mention the stories of one of my brother and my two brothers-in-law. My brother was in construction management, one of my brothers-in-law is in auto body shop management, and the other brother-in-law is a mid-level manager.

All three lost jobs within the past two years due to their companies facing economic woes. My brother immediately sent out resumes and spoke with industry contacts in his area, and was re-employed—working longer hours at less pay—within a month. With his work ethic, I suspect he be promoted once an opportunity becomes available.

My brother-in-law the body shop manager has gone through a string of layoffs in south Florida, but never was out of work for long because he was willing to compromise and take less than he thought he was worth to support his family. He even moved from Florida to North Carolina in pursuit of work opportunities, and seems to be making a good impression at his new shop.

My brother-in-law the middle-manager has been under-employed over a year. He works a part-time job and collects unemployment.

When he does get interviews, he torpedoes them. He recently told a perspective employer that what they were offering salary-wise wasn't good enough.

These anecdotes run true almost everywhere.

Similarly, I have a brother-in-law who was spent his whole life working as a first-class surgeon and when he was laid off from his hospital after it was taken over by Obamacare he could only get a job offer as a Wal-Mart greeter. And do you know how he repaid Wal-Mart for offering them this fine, prestigious position? Why he pulled down his pants and done peed right on that thar floor!

This goes to prove that all highly-paid surgeons enjoy spraying their bodily fluids in public places, or something like that. Much like Confederate Yankee, I've forgotten what this useless anecdote was supposed to prove.

Here's a really good post on the deficit wars - and the myth of economic "recovery." [via Corrente]

For about 20 years now, I've been warning people that the continuing rise in home values was unsustainable - and bad for the economy. I can't stress this enough: Shelter is shelter, and not an investment. Speculating in residential real estate on the basis of constantly-increasing equity is a relatively recent development that drives a lot of bad economic and social consequences. (Don't even get me started on what a very bad idea it is to use property taxes to fund school systems.)

Using houses as ATM distorted many things in the economy, not the least of which was the parallel stagnation in wages. Think about this: since the 70s, we've seen a steady rise in women working outside the home, a rise in property values, and a monstrous increase in personal debt.

Yet wages never kept pace with any of that. (In fact, those of us who still have jobs are now working harder for less money than we earned in the 1970s.) But with a working spouse bringing in additional income and home equity loans, we could convince ourselves that increasing equity was the same as earning more.

It also kept things calm on the domestic political front, because we bought the illusion that the economy was rewarding us. (Which is one of the reasons why otherwise conservative Republicans were always so supportive of women going to work. It helped keep wages low.)

Even though I see great amounts of psychic pain in the transition, I believe that deflated housing prices are an ultimate good. Housing simply shouldn't cost this much when we aren't earning enough to pay for them; we shouldn't have to take out equity loans to get by.

Which is why I'd recommend that you read Jesse's entire article. He points out that the bulk of Obama's bailout funds and the thrust of his policies is aimed not at bailing out underwater mortgages for drowning homeowners, but to reinflate the value of the bad housing assets.

In other words, to continue the class war on behalf of the bankers.

Continue reading »

Mother Jones: Back to Basics

Mugsy`s Rap Sheet: Bi-partisanship is a crock

The Satirical Political Report: Cheney claims detainee torture was merely 'end-of-life counseling.'

Texas Observer Blog: "We Hate the United States": Secessionists rally at Capitol while Perry stays home

Unfogged: A few news items that caught my eye

Open Left: Who could've foreseen the housing bubble? Dean Baker, that's who - in 2002

Dean Baker is the Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and he shares some interesting information with us:

Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression.

This effort is bizarre for several reasons. First, the economy is sinking rapidly. While President Obama's stimulus package is a good first step towards counteracting the decline, there is probably not a single economist in the country who believes that is adequate to the task. President Obama would be advised to focus his attention on getting the economy back in order instead of attacking the country's most important social program.

The second reason why this task force is strange is that Social Security doesn't need reforming. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 40 years with no changes whatsoever.

The third reason that this effort is pernicious is that this talk of reform is occurring with the baby boomers just as the cusp of retirement. Due to the reckless policies of the Rubin-Greenspan-Bush clique, this cohort has just seen their housing equity wiped out with the collapse of the housing bubble. Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes.

Similarly, if they had been fortunate enough to accumulate any substantial amount of savings in a 401(k) account, they just saw much of this wealth vanish with the plunge in the stock market. The median late baby boomer household (ages 45-54) has a net worth of just over $80 including the equity in their home. This means that if they took all of their savings, they would have less than half of their home (assuming a median price $175,000) paid off, and nothing else.

The median household among older baby boomers would be doing a bit better. With a net worth of $143,000, this household could have most of their home paid off, but nothing else. And of course, half of the population has wealth less than the median, so they would be less well-prepared for retirement.

In short, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security and Medicare to support them. And now President Obama is apparently prepared to appoint a commission that will attack these only remaining pillars of support.

John Amato: If Obama touches the third rail of politics, he is truly clueless. How did that work out for Bush? I really don't get it. The konservative krowd have been trying to destroy it ever since FDR put it in place.

This keeps coming back mainly because Democratic politiciansin explicably keep using it as a yardstick of "fiscal responsibility." It's actually the opposite.

Any Grand Bargain that includes negotiating with conservatives on social security must be off the table. They want to destroy it. They always have.

digby: U.S prison for terrorists often held the wrong men.

Pacific Views: Some selective history in the first of a three part WaPo series on the housing bubble.

Seeing the Forest: G-Dub has FINALLY decided to go after Bin Laden, but it's all about his pathetic "legacy."

Odd Bits of Life in New Orleans: Wingnuts emerge from their caves to compare Iowa and Gulf Coast flooding. (h/t First Draft)

Things More Muslim than Obama

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Skewz, Drexel Dems, A Spork in the Drawer, The Local Crank

hi kids, skippy the bush kangaroo here, with the blog round up!

forget about the war on terror, what about the war on zombies? anyway, here's the top 20 things a presidential candidate can't say. and one thing we need more of, is limericks about democrats!

18 homosexuals face the death penalty in nigeria under islamic law, but don't worry, there's plenty of christian proselytizing in our own military (starring stephen baldwin). and jesus-shaped grease stains go for big bucks!

the angry bear wants to help you learn which candidate most agrees with you. but the gop figures scolding you is the best way to raise money. even worse, pavarotti is in the hospital!

concluding the economic questions of the week, how's your housing bubble? how's your stock market? how's your global economy? and just how smart are your economists?

well, kids, that does it for my guest stint at the round up. i want to thank mike for giving me this opportunity, and the lovely nicole for helping me with formatting, and also a big thanks to john for permission to steal the idea for skippy's late nite music club. it's been swell, and i'll see you all in blogtopia, and yes, i coined that phrase!

Ever since Kevin Drum invented it, centuries ago in blog years, Friday Cat Blogging has been a tradition in the reality-based community. So, here's a collection of Friday Felinity, in no particular order, they're all cute, dammit. (After giving image and the name of each cat, I've added a parenthetical that links to the cat's staffperson).

The Mighty Fang (Bad Tux, gold bug stomper).

Continue reading »